Friday, April 28, 2023

Ambrosiaster’s understanding of “Predestination” as “Foreknowledge”

The following comes from:

 

Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism (British Academy Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 185-87

 

Predestination explained as foreknowledge

 

The author known as Ambrosiaster referred to the questions raised by Paul’s statements about Jacob and Esau as a ‘complaint’ or ‘accusation’ (querela), and said that pagans interpreted Paul’s statements as disproving Christianity’s claim to present a just God.254 He interpreted Jacob and Esau as types who represented believers and non‑believers.255 His explanation of the Jacob and Esau story was that this referred to God’s foreknowledge. Ambrosiaster explained predestination as foreknowledge in an emphatic manner, using the word ‘foreknowledge’ or variants of it fifteen times in his comments on Rom. 9:11–16 to underline his argument that this was foreknowledge of autonomous human decisions.256 He repeated nine times that God was just.257 Reading Ambrosiaster’s comments on Rom. 9:11–16, what come across strongly are his prioritising of justice, his overwhelming concern to interpret predestination as God’s foreknowledge of autonomous human actions, his references to the ‘will’ (uoluntas) and the ‘mind’ (mens) of the individual as the factor determining God’s responses, his references to merit, his suggestion that all nature is good and only the will creates evil, his concern that man should not be able to make excuses (the same argument that Evagrius, Jerome and Pelagius used), his reference to God’s universal salvific will [1 Tim. 2:4], and the fact that in order to preserve God’s justice he cited Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11:God is not a (p.186) respecter of persons, to show that God did not have pre‑selected favourites, just as Ambrose and Jerome did. Ambrosiaster then suggested that the complaint should cease because he had resolved the issue.

 

He thus worked hard to interpret Paul’s words to show that God’s judgements were dependent on man’s autonomous decisions:

 

For when they were not yet born nor had they done anything either good or bad, so that God’s plan might continue according to his election, it was said not on the basis of works but on the basis of the calling, that the elder would serve the younger, as it is written: I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated [Mal. 1:2–3]. That is in Malachi. Paul proclaims God’s foreknowledge in these matters, because nothing else can happen other than what God knows will happen. For through his knowledge of what each of them will be in the future, he said: ‘This one will be worthy, who will be the younger, and the one who will be older will be unworthy’. He chose one and rejected the other as a result of his foreknowledge. And God’s plan continues with regard to the one he chose because nothing can happen except what God knows and has planned with regard to him, that he will be worthy of salvation; and concerning him whom God rejected, likewise God’s plan continues, that he planned concerning him, because he will be unworthy. This God does as one who knows the future and not as a respecter of persons [Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11], for he condemns no‑one before they should sin, and he crowns no‑one before they should conquer. This relates to the case of the Jews who defend their previous privilege as sons of Abraham.258

 

Ambrosiaster’s explanation of Paul’s meaning is at odds with Augustine’s interpretation, in which prevenient grace was the cause of an individual’s virtue and God’s foreknowledge of an individual’s free decision was not a viable escape route from that truth, as Augustine explained:

 

But it is surprising to see the steep cliffs they hurl themselves over when they are trapped by these difficulties and fear the nets of truth. They say: ‘He hated one and loved the other of those not yet born because he foresaw their future works’. Who would not be surprised that the Apostle lacked this very clever idea? . … Where now are the merits, where are the works either past or future, carried out or to be carried out, as if by the strength of free will? Did not the Apostle offer a clear statement concerning the excellence of gratuitous grace, that is, of true grace? . … Is it on (p.187) account of the future works of both of them which God foresaw? No, heaven forbid this also.259

 

It is noteworthy that in around AD 428–9, Prosper of Aquitaine wrote to Augustine saying that among earlier interpreters of Scripture the consensus understanding of predestination was that it was God’s foreknowledge of autonomous human actions.260

 

Notes for the Above:

 

(254) Ambrosiaster, In epistolas Paulinas, on Rom. 9:1–13 (ed. Vogels, CSEL 81/1, p. 317); all references and quotations are taken from the γ-text of Ambrosiaster’s Commentary on the Pauline Epistles.

 

(255) Ambrosiaster, In epistolas Paulinas, on Rom. 9:10 (ed. Vogels, CSEL 81/1, p. 311).

 

(256) Ambrosiaster, In epistolas Paulinas, on Rom. 9:11–16 (ed. Vogels, CSEL 81/1, pp. 313–23). The evidence to support this argumentation can be found in the translation and text of Ambrosiaster, In epistolas Paulinas, on Rom. 9:11–16 in the appendix at the end of this chapter. The total of 15 uses of the word ‘foreknowledge’ includes only occurrences of the words praescientia and praescius, and omits the times he referred to God’s knowing the future (nouit/ sciens futurum, etc), of which there are several also. Ambrosiaster also propounded this argument that predestination was God’s foreknowledge in his comments on Rom. 8:28–30 (ed. Vogels, CSEL 81/1, pp. 289–93).

 

(257) Counting uses of the words ‘justice’ (iustitia), ‘just’ (iustus) and ‘not unjustly’ (non iniuste).

 

(258) Ambrosiaster, In epistolas Paulinas, on Rom. 9:11–13 (ed. Vogels, CSEL 81/1, p. 313), ‘Nam cum nati nondum fuissent aut aliquid egissent bonum uel malum, ut secundum electionem propositum Dei permaneret, non ex operibus, sed ex uocatione dictum est, quia maior seruiet minori, sicut scriptum est: Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui [Mal. 1:2–3]. Istud in Malachia habetur. Praescientiam Dei flagitat in his causis, quia non aliud potest euenire, quam nouit Deus futurum. Sciendo enim quid unusquisque illorum futurus esset dixit: “Hic erit dignus, qui erit minor, et qui erit maior, indignus”. Vnum elegit praescientia et alterum spreuit. Et in illo quem elegit, propositum Dei manet, quia aliud non potest euenire quam scit et proposuit in illo, ut salute dignus sit; et in illo quem spernit, simili modo manet propositum, quod proposuit de illo, quia indignus erit. Hoc quasi praescius, non personarum acceptor [Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11], nam neminem damnat, antequam peccet, et nullum coronat, antequam uincat. Hoc pertinet ad causam Iudaeorum, qui sibi praerogatiuam defendunt, quod filii sint Abrahae.’

 

(259) Augustine, Ep. 194.8.35–9 (ed. Goldbacher, CSEL 57, pp. 204–7), ‘Mirum est autem, cum his coartantur angustiis, in quanta se abrupta praecipitent metuentes retia ueritatis. “Ideo”, inquiunt, “nondum natorum alium oderat, alium diligebat, quia eorum futura opera praeuidebat.” Quis istum acutissimum sensum defuisse Apostolo non miretur? . … Vbi nunc merita, ubi opera uel praeterita uel futura tamquam liberi arbitrii uiribus adimpleta siue adimplenda? Nonne apertam protulit Apostolus de gratuitae gratiae, hoc est uerae gratiae commendatione sententiam? . … An propter opera quae futura praeuidebat amborum? Immo et hoc absit’.

 

(260) Prosper, apud Augustine, Ep. 225.8 (ed. Goldbacher, CSEL 57, p. 467), ‘When the opinions of earlier teachers on this matter are reviewed, one and the same judgement is found in almost all of them, by which they have taken the plan and predestination of God as being based on his foreknowledge, so that God made some people vessels of honour and others vessels of reproach for this reason, namely, because he foresaw the end of each person and knew in advance how each would will and act in the future under the help of this grace’; ‘Retractatis priorum de hac re opinionibus, paene omnium par inuenitur et una sententia, qua propositum et praedestinationem Dei secundum praescientiam receperunt, ut ob hoc Deus alios uasa honoris alios contumeliae fecerit, quia finem uniuscuiusque praeuiderit et, sub ipso gratiae adiutorio in qua futurus esset uoluntate et actione, praescierit.’